-
OM's ignorance knows no bounds. In the Kevin McCarthy/ Natural Selection thread OM called me a liar for saying that we can tell the difference betweem something that was designed and something that nature, operating freely, can produce.
Earth to OM- people do just that on a daily basis. Your ignorance is not a refutation. Your ignorance is entertaining but it is getting a tad boring...
Joe,
ReplyDeleteThat's right Joe. People do do it on a daily basis.
The point is rather that ID claims to be able to objectively determine if an object is designed regardless of any knowledge about it's history.
You claim that it can do that. I claim that it can't. You've been unable to show proof for your claim yet you continue to make it.
Therefore you are a liar.
OM:
ReplyDeleteThe point is rather that ID claims to be able to objectively determine if an object is designed regardless of any knowledge about it's history.
People do that on a daily basis, moron.
OM:
You claim that it can do that.
I can.
OM:
You've been unable to show proof for your claim yet you continue to make it.
I have proved it to people who matter. And until you come here and watch there isn't anything you can say about it.
Therefor you are an ignorant piece of shit liar.
Stonehenge- no one knew its history until theyn started studying it as an artifact.
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact tat is how it goes wth archaeology and forensics- they try to determine the "history" just given the effect.
Obviously OM is too fucking ignorant to grasp that...
As for me- decades of hunting and tracking along with decades of providing fault analysis- meaning determining the root cause- design, customer, components.
ReplyDeleteJoe
ReplyDeleteStonehenge- no one knew its history until theyn started studying it as an artifact.
So who built it then?
As a matter of fact tat is how it goes wth archaeology and forensics- they try to determine the "history" just given the effect.
And what has ID determined with regard to the "history" of the bacterial flagellum?
Stonehenge- no one knew its history until theyn started studying it as an artifact.
ReplyDeleteOM:
So who built it then?
No one knows.
As a matter of fact tat is how it goes wth archaeology and forensics- they try to determine the "history" just given the effect.
OM:
And what has ID determined with regard to the "history" of the bacterial flagellum?
ID doesn't determine- people do- dumbass. And right now there is a resource issue- rsources wasted on evotards.
But give IDists 150 years and the resources evotards are now wasting and answers will follow.
Joe
ReplyDeleteNo one knows.
Then you've disproved your own point.
ID doesn't determine- people do- dumbass. And right now there is a resource issue- rsources wasted on evotards.
Approach the Templeton foundation with a request for funding then. There's no excuse, they plenty of money and are willing to provide it to such projects.
You only have to ask.
What excuse will you come up with for the reason that's never happened and never will happen?
But give IDists 150 years and the resources evotards are now wasting and answers will follow.
Unless you come up with some results that's never going to happen. It's catch 22. So if I were you I'd start working on that proposal to the Templeton foundation.
The Foundation supports projects investigating the evolution and fundamental nature of life, human life, and mind, especially as they relate to issues of meaning and purpose. Projects are welcome from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, including the biological sciences, neuroscience, archeology, and paleontology.
Sounds perfect! And if you can't defeat the Darwinists without resources you'll need to do something to beat them at their own game as you can be sure simply complaining about the unfairness of it all won't achieve anything at all.
No one knows.
ReplyDeleteOM:
Then you've disproved your own point.
How did I do that, liar?
And again even if ID didn't exist you still couldn't produce any positive evidence for your position- and given all the resources your position has tha is beyond pathetic.
Thanks OM, for continuing to prove my point- that you are an ignorant piece of shit...
ReplyDeleteJoe
ReplyDeleteHow did I do that, liar?
Like so. You said:
As a matter of fact tat is how it goes wth archaeology and forensics- they try to determine the "history" just given the effect.
Then
Stonehenge- no one knew its history until theyn started studying it as an artifact.
So I asked: So who built it then?
And you said:
No one knows.
Yet if we can study the "history" of an artefact given just the "effect" then you'd be able to tell me *something* about Stonehenge if what you were saying is true.
Yet you can't even show via ID methodology that Stonehenge is designed, never mind who designed it.
What CSI does Stonehenge have Joe? Let me guess, enough to let you know it's designed but you can't put a specific figure on it?
Yep, for Joe "gut feel" = "objective science".
Om, you are a moron-
ReplyDeleteYet if we can study the "history" of an artefact given just the "effect" then you'd be able to tell me *something* about Stonehenge if what you were saying is true.
Researchers have said *something* about Stonehenge.
What the fuck is your problem?
OM:
Yet you can't even show via ID methodology that Stonehenge is designed, never mind who designed it.
I bet they used ID methodology. Ya see before archaeologists can say something is an artifact that have to eliminate necessity and chance as possible producers. And they have to find some positive sign of design.
That is ID methodology you ignorant tool.
OM:
What CSI does Stonehenge have Joe?
What does that even mean, moron?
Why would you even be using CSI for Stonehenge? Do you use a saw to put nails into a board?
You are so fucking clueless it is pathetic.
Joe
ReplyDeleteWhy would you even be using CSI for Stonehenge?
According to you CSI can be used to determine if something is designed.
Do so for Stonehenge, if you can.
OM:
ReplyDeleteAccording to you CSI can be used to determine if something is designed.
CSI is just ONE tool for doing so and it is used in specific circumstances.
But thanks for admitting that you are an ignorant piece of shit.
OM:
ReplyDeleteYet if we can study the "history" of an artefact...
I said:
Stonehenge- no one knew its history until they started studying it as an artifact.
Notice I did NOT say anything about studying the history.
Thanks for continuing to prove my point but this is getting a little boring....
JoeTard said...
ReplyDeleteOM:What CSI does Stonehenge have Joe?
What does that even mean, moron?
Why would you even be using CSI for Stonehenge? Do you use a saw to put nails into a board?
So what specifically can we use our CSI 'tool' to detect design on Joe? Things you already know are designed?
Please list the criteria for deciding if CSI is the right design detection tool.
tardtard:
ReplyDeleteSo what specifically can we use our CSI 'tool' to detect design on Joe?
Living organisms, fraud, forgery- just off the top of my head.
tardtard:
Please list the criteria for deciding if CSI is the right design detection tool.
They fit the definition.
But anyway- Claude Shannon provided the math for information. Specification is Shannon information with meaning/ function (in biology specified information is cashed out as biological function). And Complex means it is specified information of 500 bits or more- that math being taken care of in "No Free Lunch".
ReplyDeleteThat is it- specified information of 500 bits or more is Complex Specified Information. It is that simple.
And thorton, I am still waiting on your math:
I did do the math Joe
32 base pairs = 5 bits.
Duplicated to 64 base pairs = 6 bits.
Joe G said...
ReplyDeleteT: So what specifically can we use our CSI 'tool' to detect design on Joe?
Living organisms, fraud, forgery- just off the top of my head.
How do you use CSI to detect fraud and forgery Joe? Do you have to compute the CSI of the original, then the forgery, then figure the difference?
That's a good trick since you haven't computed the CSI for a single object yet.
T: Please list the criteria for deciding if CSI is the right design detection tool.
They fit the definition
So your definition of "an object that contains CSI" is "It's an object. It contains CSI".
Do you really wonder why so many people consider you to be mentally retarded?
Hey tardtard, I am still waiting on your math:
ReplyDeleteI did do the math Joe
32 base pairs = 5 bits.
Duplicated to 64 base pairs = 6 bits.
What are you afraid of? You have already proven tat you are an ignorant piece of shit so producing your math can't make it any worse.
They fit the definition:
But anyway- Claude Shannon provided the math for information. Specification is Shannon information with meaning/ function (in biology specified information is cashed out as biological function). And Complex means it is specified information of 500 bits or more- that math being taken care of in "No Free Lunch".
That is it- specified information of 500 bits or more is Complex Specified Information. It is that simple.
You are really proud of your ignorance eh?
JoeTard, you forgot to tell us how to use CSI to detect fraud and forgery. Do you have to compute the CSI of the original, then the forgery, then figure the difference?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the CSI of an original Monet painting Joe?
BTW JoeTard for the clueless IDiots who can't do math: 2^5 = 32, 2^6=64
tardtard:
ReplyDeleteBTW JoeTard for the clueless IDiots who can't do math: 2^5 = 32, 2^6=64
BWAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAA- you stupid freak. That is not how you do it.
If you have a string of 32 nucleotides, each nucleotide is 2 bits- 4 nucleotides = 2^2, which means 2 bits per nucleotide.
That means your 32 nucleotides have 64 bits of information carrying capacity.
And that means you are obviously too stupid to understand CSI.
You have to know your limitations and you are mathematically and scientifically illiterate.
JoeTard, you STILL forgot to tell us how to use CSI to detect fraud and forgery. Do you have to compute the CSI of the original, then the forgery, then figure the difference?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the CSI of an original Monet painting Joe?
We can smell your fear of answering from here JoeTard, just like we smelled it in the Mathgrrl thread at UD.
thorton,
ReplyDeleteObviously you are too stupid to discuss this and obviously you are too much of an intellectual coward to support your position.
2^5 = 5 bits of information? Are you freaking kidding me?
Come back after you get an education and positive evidence for your position.
tardtard:
What is the CSI of an original Monet painting Joe?
What the fuck does that even mean?
JoeTard:
ReplyDeleteT: What is the CSI of an original Monet painting Joe?
What the fuck does that even mean?
It means you're full of shit when you claim you can use CSI to detect forgeries and frauds.
But everyone already knows that.
tardtard:
ReplyDeleteWhat is the CSI of an original Monet painting Joe?
What the fuck does that even mean?
tardtard:
It means you're full of shit...
Because you are an ignorant piece of shit that means I am full of shit?
How does that work?
Joe, how do you use CSI to detect forgeries and fraud?
ReplyDeleteFirst you tell people that 2^5 = 5 bits and 2^6 = 6 bits.
ReplyDeleteFrom that information I can tell that you are a fucking fraud.
Anything else?
Ya see I just add up all the bullshit information that you post.
ReplyDeleteIt comes to well over 500 bits and it proves that you are a fraud.
I used the same methodology to prove that Kevn R. McCarthy, AKA OgreMKV, is also a fraud
ReplyDeleteSo you were lying when you said investigators use CSI in determining forgeries and fraud.
ReplyDeleteYou tend to lie a lot I notice.
tardliar:
ReplyDeleteSo you were lying when you said investigators use CSI in determining forgeries and fraud.
Except I didn't say that. You are lying.
And I used it to determine that you are a fraud.
Why do evotards think that if they shit themselves it refutes what I say?
To recap:
ReplyDeletetardtard asked:
Joe, how do you use CSI to detect forgeries and fraud?
And I used CSI to determine that thorton is a fraud, ie an ignorant lying piece of shit.
What I did was collect evidence until I had CSI- post after post, studied and stored.
The problem is there is so little specified information in any of its posts that it took thousands of posts to squeeze out 500 bits.
Plagiarism- CSI would/ could be a tool used to identify plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteCopyright and patent infringement, depending on the cas.
Joetard lies
ReplyDeleteT: So you were lying when you said investigators use CSI in determining forgeries and fraud.
Except I didn't say that. You are lying.
But right above you said
T: So what specifically can we use our CSI 'tool' to detect design on Joe?
Living organisms, fraud, forgery - just off the top of my head.
If you're going to lie JoeTard you shouldn't make it so obvious, especially lying in the same thread.
JoeTard said...
ReplyDeletePlagiarism- CSI would/ could be a tool used to identify plagiarism.
Copyright and patent infringement, depending on the cas.
Give us some specific examples along with the CSI measurements where CSI was used to determine plagiarism, copyright or patent infringement.
I say you're lying again and can't do it.
tardtardliar:
ReplyDeleteSo what specifically can we use our CSI 'tool' to detect design on Joe?
Right, asshole liar. Not one word about "investigators".
And yes I should have said YOU cannot use CSI for anything as you are too fucking stupid and dishonest to conduct any type of investigation.
THEN I gave an example of how I used CSI to determine that YOU are a fraud.
So now I have you as an ignorant lying fraud piece of shit.
The evolution of a tardliar:
ReplyDeleteSo what specifically can we use our CSI 'tool' to detect design on Joe?
I answered that so it evolved to-
Joe, how do you use CSI to detect forgeries and fraud?
I answered that about the fraud and gave an example. So that evolved to-
So you were lying when you said investigators use CSI in determining forgeries and fraud.
When your ignorance is exposed you have to move the goalposts.
Plagiarism- CSI would/ could be a tool used to identify plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteCopyright and patent infringement, depending on the case.
tardtardassholefraudliar:
Give us some specific examples along with the CSI measurements where CSI was used to determine plagiarism, copyright or patent infringement.
You're just an ignorant fuck and proud of it- CSI measuements?
How the fuck do you think they determine plagiarism? By the amount of specified information copied- dumbass.
JoeTard, you're so funny when you get caught in a lie, and then start telling even more lies to cover for the first!
ReplyDeleteNo wonder you cowardly avoided Blipey. He would have kicked your ass.
JoeTard lied...
ReplyDeleteHow the fuck do you think they determine plagiarism? By the amount of specified information copied- dumbass.
Yet you can't give us an actual example with any CSI calculations. Looks like you're full of shit again.
thorton gets its ignorance and lies exposed and once again has a hissy fit.
ReplyDeleteGo figure...
tardtard:
ReplyDeleteYet you can't give us an actual example with any CSI calculations.
Hey mr. 2^5 = 5 bits- You are too fucking stupid for calculations.
ROFLCOPTER!
ReplyDeletePoor JoeTard: no rigorous CSI definition, no CSI calculations, no backbone, no clue.
Poor JoeTard.
I provided a rigorous CSI definition.
ReplyDeleteAnother prediction fulfilled.
Thanks tardtard...
tardtard:
ReplyDeleteno CSI calculations
That's from mr 32 (nucleotides) = 2^5 = 5 bits
BWAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAA
Hey thorton, seeing that your head is up your ass can you stick out your tongue and tickle your prostate- oops your gender doesn't have a prostate, sorry.
ReplyDeletePoor thorton, thought she had a prostate but it turned out to be her brain...
ReplyDelete